Massachusetts court says 'upskirt' photos are legal
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
there are (as usual) a lot of mouthbreathers out there that don't have the slightest idea of how our government works and don't even have past a 3rd grade education on the topic. The court is not saying this is ok, the statute just needs to be changed and upgraded. I saw another article having to explain to a horde of morons that when the supreme court says x is not illegal, it's not an implicit condoning.
"A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is 'partially nude,' no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing," wrote Justice Margot Botsford of the state Supreme Judicial Court.
This story, the ruling itself, the actions of the police as well as the prosecutors all leave a lot of questions.
1. Being in public, one does not have an exceptional expectation of privacy, so why is there a law against photographing nude or partially nude people? It has been repeatedly shown that police can be photographed in public, whether they like it or not.
2. Where was the prosecutor in charging the defendant this way? Why not gross and lascivious behavior? Disturbing the peace, invasion of privacy, fucking whatever, something that would stick.
3. A female judge made this ruling?
4. If the subjects "private parts" were exposed then it is not an "upskirt" What is the real story? The judge knows something the reporters left out.
5. The legislature had best act on this post haste or clearly there will be serious issues to contend with.
This story, the ruling itself, the actions of the police as well as the prosecutors all leave a lot of questions.
1. Being in public, one does not have an exceptional expectation of privacy, so why is there a law against photographing nude or partially nude people? It has been repeatedly shown that police can be photographed in public, whether they like it or not.
2. Where was the prosecutor in charging the defendant this way? Why not gross and lascivious behavior? Disturbing the peace, invasion of privacy, fucking whatever, something that would stick.
3. A female judge made this ruling?
4. If the subjects "private parts" were exposed then it is not an "upskirt" What is the real story? The judge knows something the reporters left out.
5. The legislature had best act on this post haste or clearly there will be serious issues to contend with.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
christiefan915
Catalyst
What lousy legal reasoning.
How is this not an invasion of privacy, violation of personal space?Somebody ought to "upskirt" the judge... hold the camera right at her knees and snap away, see how she likes it.
I'm outraged and don't even live there but I ride the "T" here, now another thing to watch for besides getting a purse stolen.
Guy was a weirdo. We both got on the subway at the same time and I noticed that he made a quick move to sit opposite this young woman in a skirt, notwithstanding that there were a lot of open seats on her side of the car. I sat on her side. He pulled out his phone and was holding it out in front of his and I could see what he was doing in the reflection of the window. I wasn't absolutely certain, so got up and walked in front of him and could see myself on the reflection of his phone. I didn't make a huge deal out of it but I quitely asked him straight out what he though he was doing. He mumbled some nonsense and I told him to stop and that if I saw it again I'd tell the cops. The guy sitting next to him asked me, "Did I miss something?" I told him what happended and the dude got off at the next stop. Normally, I wouldn't do that kind of thing, but the guy was brazen and she was quite young.
Funny thing is that she was on her phone with her earbuds in and had no clue what happened.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Question for you. Do you want the courts to rule using the words and texts of laws, or do you want them to rule based upon the majority thinking of whats right and wrong?What lousy legal reasoning.
Somebody ought to "upskirt" the judge... hold the camera right at her knees and snap away, see how she likes it.
I'm outraged and don't even live there but I ride the "T" here, now another thing to watch for besides getting a purse stolen.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Well, we all know that MA judges can be complete fags.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
I think most of the targets of this are quite young. I think that when men shame other men over behavior like this it works better than anything.
What lousy legal reasoning.
Somebody ought to "upskirt" the judge... hold the camera right at her knees and snap away, see how she likes it.
I'm outraged and don't even live there but I ride the "T" here, now another thing to watch for besides getting a purse stolen.
Now, now....after all, MA is another bastion of liberalism...you women tolerate the fruits, why not the nuts....I'd love to follow you into a rest room just to see
your tolerance tested in real life.....lmao !
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Settle down Bravo, she's married.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
see? not so hard. that's how our country works.
So? He just wants to reminisce.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well that sucks. I kinda like panty shots!
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I can't blame him. I wouldn't want to look up your skirt either!
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Oh it does. I worked as a security guard, when I went to college, in a big industrial warehouse that had a public restroom. We were always catching perverts in the mens room. Whenever we caught any of the weirdo's in action we never said a thing to them. We would just pull out a squirt gun and squirt them with water. I don't know who the guy was that figured that one out but it would freak these pervs out. You'd squirt them and they say "Hey what you do that for?!" and we wouldn't say a thing. We'd just squirt them again. Usually two or three squirts and they would freak and run out. Sometimes they'd even start crying. It was freaken hilarious!